Legal Opinion · Dissent

Reimann v. Monmouth Consolidated Water Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided February 14, 1952Published

1DissentVanderbilt, C. J.

Under Baum v. Somerville Water Co., 84 N. J. L. 611 (E. & A. 1913), the defendant water company, in the absence of an express contract with a property owner and a breach thereof, has no obligation to furnish water with sufficient pressure and in sufficient, quantity for fire fighting purposes. Because I am of the opinion that the rule in the Baum case is repugnant not- only to fundamental concepts of substantial justice but to modern principles of tort liability, I am constrained to dissent from the opinion of the majority and to state the reasons why I think the rule should be discarded in…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Funk v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  3. Woods v. LancetNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
  4. Carter v. Yardley & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
  5. Martin v. CurranNew York Court of Appeals · 1951

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API